4 ms·
>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.
by hueving 10y ago
>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion
Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.
- lamontcg 10y agoFukushima is up to $200bn and rising.
- MichaelApproved 10y agoHere's a recent source that puts it close to that figure ($180 billion) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248
- Crito 10y agoIf you took AGW seriously, you would laugh as such a pitiful expense.
- DennisP 10y agoFukushima is not a "newer reactor." It was built in the 70s.
- lamontcg 10y agoYeah, and I still remember when Chernobyl happened in 1986 and they told us that it was all due to shitty Russian design and that it could never happen to a reactor like Fukushima. Those goal posts keep conveniently moving. Today's brand new reactors eventually become the 30 or 40 year old reactors that are allowed to have meltdowns that "could never happen with new reactor design".
- calibration263 10y agoFukushima was commissioned in 1971, Chernobyl was commissioned in 1977. That said Fukushima was a better design, and as a result was a much less significant event. Reactors built today will be 30-40 years old one day, but we also have 30 years more knowledge about nuclear power than when either of those reactors were built.
- coldtea 10y ago>Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors That's what they said for Chernobyl too.
- throwanem 10y agoIt really isn't. Also, no one still builds reactors out of graphite, or without containment vessels. So there's that.
- coldtea 10y ago>Also, no one still builds reactors out of graphite, or without containment vessels. So there's that. At the point they were built, Chernobyl, Fukushima etc were thought OK to be built in that way. Which doesn't give much credence to "this time it's different, we've finally nailed this security thing", so there's that too. Except in the sense that "technology always progress". Which while generally true, is a moot point for first-generation new approaches. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-old-nuclear-reactors-lessons-from-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-old-... http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nuclear-near-misses-a-decade-of-accidents-at-us-nuclear-energy-power-plants-may-2016-3mb.pdf?f3025c http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nuc...
- Paradigma11 10y agoDid any Non-Soviet scientists and engineers say this?
- coldtea 10y agoNo, but Non-Soviet scientists said the same things for other reactors that ended in disasters.
- calibration263 10y agoWhich reactors? And which had disasters anywhere close to the scale of Chernobyl? And of those, which of those reactors were newer than Chernobyl?